9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri V.K. Singh, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order demanding duty, interest and imposing penalty on the ground that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, therefore, they are liable to pay Central Excise duty on their clearances. 2. The facts of the case are that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period 1998-99. The same was adjudicated, demands were confirmed along with interest and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Shri Sunil Nawandhar, Chartered Accountant, appeared on behalf of the appellant and submits that, in the appellant's own case, for the earlier period with regard to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory is not applicable to the appellant, as in that case, the assessee was having their fixed factory where they were having their manufacturing unit, but in this case, the appellant is undertaking turnkey contracts and were working at the site of their clients.Therefore, it cannot be said that the department was having knowledge of the activity of the appellant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment with regard to the activity of the appellant at site. It is a fact on record that the appellant was engaged in turnkey contracts and for the earlier period i.e., 1994-97 on the same activity a show-cause notice was issued on 31/03/2000 wherein this Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Following the case law, we observe that, in this case also, when it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
